Yet another success for a school the previous administration, and in particular Cllr Marshall’s criteria, would have us believe is failing.

A little encouragement and a little support and our rural schools can, and do, demonstrate quite how effective they are and quite how well they deliver education.

Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll also commented

Regarding the update which reads ‘Auileen Goodall is an Educational Development Officer – not a Quality Improvement Officer. This keeps the pressure on the question of just what the very many QIOs at Argyll and Bute council actually do and whether that is worth what it costs us’

This is an important point of discussion. It would be interesting to know what are the remits of both roles and how much overlap is there. Based purely on title (which can obviously be misleading) they certainly appear to be roles which must have a lot of similar responsibilities. Are we getitng value for money from these two roles?

The extent to which it is defective must be marginal if it got as far as appeals to the Supreme Court.

Be interesting to see how much any revisions are actually material in terms of what is rolled out but my gut feeling is that they will be marginal and a lot of people happy at today’s ruling are going to be spitting blood.

Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named PersonsMy personal view on this is that we are better without the thumbs up and down. They don’t mean anything and they just clutter the page. I think they are more of a trivial facebook/twitter thing than something for a forum.

You also get people who simply use them just because they don’t like the poster regardless of what they say. I am pretty sure if Malcolm or NCH posted a story about a lovely old lady being recognised for her lifetime commitment to helping retired guide dogs there would be someone petty enough to give it a thumbs down!

However I appreciate people might like them.

Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named PersonsIt is probably worth being clear that this will not stop it being implemented – it just means there will be some amendments to it. Amendments which could have been got to without a stack of cash wasted on legal battles if politicians could be a little more grown up and a little less obsessed with never admitting they don’t know everything.

Like indy1 it was a campaign packed with untruths from both sides and it further demonstrated that our politicians will say anything to hoodwink the public to voting their way. We are already seeing the Remain camp back pedalling on two of the claims they pedalled relentlessly in order to get votes.

I think you’re pessimistic in terms of the number of previous NO voters that this will swing. Hardly scientific I know but I have been very surprised at the number of friends of mine who have already said they will now vote yes, some of them who were staunch No voters before. However I’m not basing this view on what a few of my mates say! There is just an inherent logic that such an issue is bound to cause a degree of swing toward Yes and we know that swing doesn’t need to be substantial.